1. This application under Sec.482 of the Code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code) has been filed by pawan Kumar Gupta for quashing an order of taking cognizance dated 30-4-1981 and the entire criminal proceeding relating thereto pending in the Court of the sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, mainly on the ground that the complaint petition does not make out any offence punishable under the law, much less under Sec.7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

2. On the other hand, a preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel appearing for the State to the maintainability to this application on the ground that a similar application on the same ground and for the same relief was riled by this petitioner (Pawan Kumar Gupta) under Sec.482 of the code which was numbered as Cr. Misc. No.1142/82 (R ). In that application also the prayer of the petitioner was for quashing the very same criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance. It is the undisputed position that the earlier application was dispossed of as withdrawn. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the State that a fresh application under Sec.482 of the Code of same relief and substantially on the same ground cannot be entertained. In support of this submission reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service V/s. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and others, AIR 1987 SC 88.

3. For appreciating the point taken by the learned Counsel for the State it would be useful to refer to the prayer portion of the present application as also of the earlier application [cr. Misc. No.1142/82 (R]. In the present application the relevant portion of the prayer of the petitioner is as follows : - "your Lordship may be graciously pleased to admit this application, call for the records from the Court below and after hearing the parties be further pleased to quash the order of taking cognizance dated 30-4-1981 and allow this application, by further quashing the entire proceeding pending in Court below against the petitioner. " The relevant portion of the prayer of the petitioner in his earlier application [cr. Misc. No.1142/83 (R)] is as follows : - "under this circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that your Lordship may be pleased to admit this application, call for the records of the case and after hearing the parties set aside the impugned order dated 30-4-1981 by which cognizance has been taken by Shri M. Q. Hoda, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner pending before Shri Krishna murari, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ranchi in Case No. C-11 26/81. "

4. Thus it is evident that an identical prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding and the cognizance taken by the Court against the petitioner by order dated 30-4-1981 has made in both the applications. It is the admitted position that the earlier application of the petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn by the court by order dated 6-7-1983 and no liberty was given to the petitioner to file a fresh application for the same cause of action and relief. The submission of the learned counsel for the State is that since no liberty was given to the petitioner while allowing withdrawal by the said order, a second application for the same relief cannot be entertained. In support of this submission reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the decis ion of the Supremo Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service V/s. S. T. A. Tribunal Gwalior (supra ). The learned counsel has specifically drawn attention to the following observation made by the Court in this decision : "in the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however, make it cl